The scenario is that we have a customer writing checks to a non-customer for structured amounts. The non-customer is then cashing the checks each day and evading CTRs.

I swear I've seen somewhere that you're supposed to include both the customer and non-customer on the SAR, but I can't find it in writing anywhere.

1. Am I crazy?
2. Does anyone know where I can find proof.

Thanks.

If you believe your customer is purposefully writing the checks for the non-customer to structure the cash transactions, then yes I would include them in the SAR.

I wouldn't hesitate to find "proof" that it was required.

Unfortunately my boss is requesting proof.

You include any one on the SAR that you suspect is involved in potentially illegal activity. Banks deal in suspicious activity. Courts have to worry about proof.

In the instructions for the narrative section of a SAR it says "explain who benefited financially or otherwise from the transaction, how much, and how." It also instructs you to "provide a chronoligical and complete account of the possible violation of law."

IMO, a complete account would include anybody involved (including a non-customer).

It takes 2 to tango; the non customer would not have multiple chekcs to cash if your customer did not write them that way. As others stated above, it is a SUPICIOUUS Activity Report and it is not up to the bank to determine legal liability.

Just to add to the chorus, you don't know whether the apparent structuring was instigated by your depositor or by the payee, or whether they conspired to structure, and you're not going to want to dig to find out. That's law enforcement's job. If the activity is suspicious, report it under both names.

You could also classify it as "assisting" the act of structuring by writing the checks in that manner.

The nice thing is you don't have to have all the non-customer's info too ... it's not a CTR, so you can list "unknown".

I'm intrigued: Which of these two people who are obviously acting in concert does your boss want to omit, the customer or the non customer? As noted by prior respondents, the instructions to the form are clear and you have no idea whose idea this scheme was.

The more logical request would be for proof that you don't have to list both of them